So sorry for my bit lingual imprecision.
“Enough”? How many are enough? The fact that some are talking on camera doesn’t mean much. Of course you’re going to conclude that the male athletes don’t mind if you only consider the ones that don’t mind.
Moreover, if one were to allow reporters into the women’s locker rooms, one could say the same about them; clearly they don’t mind based on the fact that they’re still pro athletes.
So, to sum up, there’s no actual reason to keep women out of the Freemasons, except that women would “change” things, in some nebulous and impossible-to-define manner, and change is, apparently, always bad. But the Masons are absolutely not sexist at all, which we apparently just have to accept on their say-so, because none of them are able to defend the apparently discriminatory practices of their organization except by poorly explicated mutterings about tradition and “making MEN better.” And again, what exactly is meant by “better” is not something that can be defined, nor, needless to say, can anyone explain why this mysterious process can only be accomplished without the “undue influence of the feminine.”
Does that about cover it?
Leagues and teams make these decisions, based on a variety of factors. If everyone on a team decided to quit rather than allow reporters of either sex in the lockerrooms, then it’s unlikely that the league or team would go forward with that plan.
Fairness (probably enshrined in law, but IANAL) dictates that whatever access male reporters have should be shared by female reporters. If that is full lockerroom access or no lockerroom access it doesn’t matter. The player’s concerns are handled by the team or league making that decision. Are you proposing some other way of handling this?
When they use equally silly reasoning, yes.
When a golfing club excludes non-golfers, I don’t call their exclusion rules silly. And it makes sense for a club for the personal prevention of prostate cancer limits their membership to people with a prostate. And it makes perfect sense to me that a club that promotes public service, civic mindedness, and self improvement would exclude people that are not sufficiently civic minded, do not serve the public, or are not interested in self improvement.
But when a civic organization says that they exclude women because they’re about self-improvement…yes, that’s silly.
You’re free to draw any conclusions you wish, even ignore everything that has been said to suit your sensibilities. Either way, Masons will continue to deny membership to women, and some folks will always whine about it.
Now we’re getting dangerously close to a strawman/slippery slope argument.
I have never indicated that I had a personal interest in being allowed to join any group. My OP was about my opinions of groups that do not allow a specific gender to join with no particular reason to do so (as precisely explained by Polycarp), and a debate about why organzations do so.
dangermom, my previous post mentions women’s colleges that don’t want men in. For the record, I don’t find women excluding men for no good reason any more logical than men excluding women.
Except that you haven’t said anything. You’ve stated premises, but you have not defended them. My gut says that’s because your premises are indefensible, but I’m open to alternate explanations, if you’ve got any.
Fairness also dictates that the male athletes should not be given less protection from prying eyes than the female athletes.
I’m not saying that giving the male reporters access to the male athletes, and the female reporters access to the female athletes, but not vice versa, would be an improvement.
What I am saying is that if the women are worth protecting, then so are the men. If the men are not worth protecting, then neither are the women. Any policy that protects one sex more than the other is sexist.
Nice to see being judgemental over others isn’t dead.
But you call a men’s club that excludes non-men silly.
But not for men to limit their membership for men to learn from men.
Masons fall into THIS category at least.
So, self improvement for men by men is silly. Good thing we exclude folks who think as such.
Too bad you’re not open to the original explanations. You just want a different explanation. There isn’t one, and there doesn’t need to be one. You can call it indefensible if you want but it still passes the test of Constitutionality. We actually don’t even NEED a reason, but the explanations laid out in this thread are the reasons. Sorry if they don’t suit you. Attack Masonry all you want. Women will always be excluded, and Masons really don’t give a rat’s ass that some can’t accept it.
Except that it’s not one policy. It’s many different policies, made by each team and/or league to apply to their players. Maybe you think it’s unfair for the NY Liberty (women’s pro basketball) and the NY Knicks to have different locker room policies (if they do). Is it also unfair if the Knicks allow reporters in the locker room and the Yankees don’t? In both cases, the different policies apply to different teams, in different leagues, with different players’ associations.
It is about as wrong headed as any anti-Masonic screed I’ve ever seen.
sigh
Okay folks, it might help if everyone just calmed down a bit.
miller, featherlou, et. al.,
Masonry is an ancient organization. I don’t mean early 1900s ancient, I mean pre-1300s ancient. Obviously, at that time, women were routinely excluded from male gatherings. Was that exclusion sexist? Seen in the light of modern understanding, most likely we would consider their reasoning sexist and unsupportable. But you have to look at in context as well, and in their context it wasn’t meant that way, it just was. Not the best defense, I know, but it is what it is.
During Masonry’s formative period, the ritual was developed and codified with a particular slant toward men. It was designed for the betterment of its adherents. Better in the sense of more moral, more ethical, more trustworthy, and more honorable. Part of this includes a strong belief that when you commit to something, you live up to that commitment. Are these all things that women could benefit from as well? Certainly, and there have been several organizations created for the purpose of instilling in women many of the same principles that Masons adhere to (Eastern Star, Job’s Daughters, Rainbow Girls, etc). These organizations are collectively referred to as the allied and appendent bodies and they are a cherished part of the overall Masonic family.
One of the commitments that you make when you join is that you will never allow a woman to be made a Mason in your presence. Obviously, in these enlightened times, if one were establishing Masonry, one might choose not to include this particular tenet, but we don’t have that choice. To allow women into Masonry would be to violate an oath and Masons aren’t supposed to violate their oaths. So it’s not just a matter of changing the rules or changing the ritual. You’d have to find a way to retroactively nullify the oaths of thousands of existing Masons. Change at that scale is (remotely) possible, but you have to make a compelling argument to do so. So far, all I’ve seen are diatribes that Masonry is wrong and should change, but not a single reason for it to do so. Change is not necessarily bad, but change for change’s sake can be. Change should be reasoned not reactionary.
I hope this improves your understanding of the situation, if not your acceptance of it.
Fraternally,
Zakalwe, P.M.
That’s what it boils down to, isn’t it? And isn’t that just a wonderful credo to build your little boy’s club on? Not just ignorance, but militant ignorance.
You guys are just a bunch of peacocks, all tail feathers and squawk and no brains. The fact that you’re proud of it would be hysterically funny if it wasn’t such a sad commentary on the kind of guy who joins that kind of peacock outfit. It’s the 21st century and you guys haven’t noticed.
An organisation that deals with athletes of only one sex can not make a discriminatory decision in regard to how male and female athletes are treated, obviously. However, a number of posts in this thread did give me the impression that we’re talking about at least one organisation that deals with both. If I was mistaken about that, I do apologize for the confusion.
Your condescention is showing. When you state something like “you’re just afraid we’ll laugh at you,” the appopriate repsone is to ignore you.
Quit your whining. Here’s what I’ve gathered so far, from all the inquiry:
A man tries to go to an exclusive golf-club meeting…
Non golfer: Can I come to your meeting?
Golfer: No, you’re not a golfer.
NG: Why can’t non-golfers come?
G: We’re a club for golfers.
NG: What the purpose of your club?
G: To help golfers become better golfers.
NG: What if I want to learn how to be a better golfer, even though I’m not a golfer?
G: But you’re not a golfer. You even HATE golf. Why would you WANT to join?
NG: Because I want to learn what you learn.
G: Only golfers can learn it. You’re not a golfer. Golfers don’t want non-golfers in the club ridiculing golf and what we do.
NG: I should still be allowed to come to the meeting. You shouldn’t be allowed to EXCLUDE me.
G: But you’re not a golfer. We don’t teach to non-golfers. There are other clubs that do that. We’d have to change all of our lessons so that non-golfers would learn from it. We don’t want to change it. We want it to be a golf club for golfers. That’s why it exists. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to exclude you?
NG: Because it’s non-defensible! There’s no reason why I can’t join.
G: Yes there is, I just told you - you’re not a golfer.
NG: That’s not good enough!
G: Sorry, but we’re golfers, you’re not.
NG: I think you’re just a bunch of ninnys! I think you’re afraid I’ll discover your golf secrets and laugh at you!
G: We don’t care what you think.
NG: You’re stupid!!
Do I have it right. The only thing missing is the raspberries.
There are so few organizations out there today that put the screws to men and encourage them to act like MEN: take care of your family, do good in your community, etc.
Rest assured, guys, that not all women are like infamousmom and have an “intrinsic need to rob men of their hobbies and interests, etc.” Whether it’s the Masons, Promise Keepers, or any other organization, if they’re helping men to live up to their responsibilities and improve the world around them, why on earth would we want to hinder them?
Men need a place that they can hang out and do guy things. Women are the same way. There’s no need for the two genders to be up each other’s asses every single second of the day. That women demand to be let into mens’ social organizations is embarassing to me. We, as women, have a world of talent and vision, but instead of coming up with our own original ideas, we’ve got a noisy group of harpies that would rather the world bow down to them and, if need be, destroy associations that are hundreds of years old and have done an overwhelming amount of good. All because they can’t come play in the clubhouse. It’s so heartbreaking sniffle
These women … who are not representative of the whole, I assure you … need to GET A LIFE. For a group that claims to be so self-sufficient and independent of men, they sure do seem to need mens’ approval to function.
This isn’t a feminist issue. Making mens’ social organizations a feminist issue only detracts from the very real instances of discrimination against women that still exist.
Brother Wrath,
With respect, you’re not helping. In fact, you’re hurting.
Don’t you understand that you’re reacting exactly the way she wants you to? Her argument is from ignorance, but the way to combat ignorance is not to insult it, but to educate it. You keep insisting to her that Masonry is about improving men, then you act like a child when she calls you names. Relax! Masonry is at least 700 years old, I think it can survive without you lashing out at everyone in sight.
Also, if I could, where in the world does this “away from the undue influence of women” stuff come from? Speculative Masonry is for men because supposedly only men were operative masons. What you’re stating about women is certainly part of the ritual I learned.
Fraternally,
Zakalwe, P.M.
Crap.
Please read:
What you’re stating about women is certainly part of the ritual I learned.
as
What you’re stating about women is certainly not part of the ritual I learned.
Dearest Mod, any help on the fix would be appreciated!
What explanation? You haven’y explained anything. You’ve merely restated one of the parameters of the debate.
I want an explanation. If the question is, “Why don’t the Freemasons allow women to join?” simply saying “Because they don’t allow women to join,” doesn’t really tell me anything, does it?
Never said it didn’t. I don’t think the Masons should be forced to admit women, any more than the KKK should be forced to admit blacks. I am interested in knowing if the Masons have a better justification for their discrimination than the KKK. I assume that they do, although you wouldn’t know it from the replies in this thread.
At least, they will so long as there is such a thing as Freemasonry. As society becomes more and more gender blind, I suspect the appeal of these sorts of boy’s clubs will wane. Which, I suppose, will suit at least one of the Mason’s aims. Afterall, there is no tradition more sancrosact and unchanging than one that is no longer observed.
What, even this one C’mon, give me a little credit. I’m not saying you guys are devil worshippers. I just don’t think you’re putting up a particularly strong fight in this debate.